Question about counter-rucking

[JDM]

Hello,

New to rugby over the last few years and in the US, so I'll have lots of questions. One thing I've noticed is that it seems like teams rarely compete for the ball at the ruck. Has it always been the case?

 

[bushytop]

Hello,

New to rugby over the last few years and in the US, so I'll have lots of questions. One thing I've noticed is that it seems like teams rarely compete for the ball at the ruck. Has it always been the case?

The breakdown is a constantly evolving part of the game, there have 'probably' been more law changes and amendments to how a team can legally compete at the breakdown to turn over ball than for any other facet of the game (the scrum is up there too).

The point of the law changes has always been (essentially) to make the game more attacking... and therefore more of a spectacle. So it has refined (and refined - whittled down) the amount of things that a defending team can do in order to turn the ball over once play breaks down. As this has happened, a player with the necessary skill-set to be able to consistently win turn-overs... Richie McCaw, David Pocock, Sam Warburton, Tadhg Beirne have just become more and more valuable as breakdown turn-overs become more and more like gold-dust.

To add to this, different referees 'interpret' the breakdown rules differently, so the great turnover specialists (and teams in general) will 'tailor' their approach to defending the breakdown depending on who is reffing the game - see Wales against Australia the other day.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Pretty much what bushy said. Rule Refinements and guidelines for interpretation have largely removed competition at ruck time.
This supposedly supports attacking rugby but all it really means is that there are more defenders out wide as there aren't as many in the rucks and there are less turnovers - which are great attacking opportunities.

Neither the tackler nor tackled player are technically allowed to lie on the ground around the ball but only half of that equation is enforced. Players are not allowed to go to ground at a ruck but only elaborate diving to the ground is penalised. Crouching and leaning over the tackle pile in a way that prevents a counter ruck is completely acceptable behaviour despite the laws. A ruck has been redefined to something that occurs as soon as there have been players over the ball and once everyone has collapsed after that you are not allowed to compete anymore - it is deemed won by the attacking side. This encourages going in and dragging someone down.

 

[bushytop]

Pretty much what bushy said. Rule Refinements and guidelines for interpretation have largely removed competition at ruck time.
This supposedly supports attacking rugby but all it really means is that there are more defenders out wide as there aren't as many in the rucks and there are less turnovers - which are great attacking opportunities.

Neither the tackler nor tackled player are technically allowed to lie on the ground around the ball but only half of that equation is enforced. Players are not allowed to go to ground at a ruck but only elaborate diving to the ground is penalised. Crouching and leaning over the tackle pile in a way that prevents a counter ruck is completely acceptable behaviour despite the laws. A ruck has been redefined to something that occurs as soon as there have been players over the ball and once everyone has collapsed after that you are not allowed to compete anymore - it is deemed won by the attacking side. This encourages going in and dragging someone down.

Isn't it funny how law changes with an 'agenda' always seem to have the opposite effect. It's like with the recent tackle height changes at lower level rugby in the UK... concussions actually went up as the tacklers heads were coming into contact with the attackers hips and knees.

 

[TheOvalBall]

Welcome JDM.

A lack of counter rucking also indicates lazy play by some forwards.

 

[TheOvalBall]

And some are ball watching.

 

[JDM]

Thanks for the responses, very insightful.

 

[JDM]

Related question...I've watched some videos of Richie McCaw on youtube and quite often there are at least a few commentators that call him a cheat, mostly with regard to how he gets turnovers. What aspect of his style would lend to people thinking what he does is cheating?

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Related question...I've watched some videos of Richie McCaw on youtube and quite often there are at least a few commentators that call him a cheat, mostly with regard to how he gets turnovers. What aspect of his style would lend to people thinking what he does is cheating?

Mainly his success

 

[bushytop]

Related question...I've watched some videos of Richie McCaw on youtube and quite often there are at least a few commentators that call him a cheat, mostly with regard to how he gets turnovers. What aspect of his style would lend to people thinking what he does is cheating?

Basically (as there are A LOT of facets), the laws are such that in order to consistently turn ball over at ruck time (or even just slow it down really) you have to push to the absolute edge (or even past it) of the rules. The old saying was about Richie, that he had an invisibility cloak at the breakdown... this wasn't necessarily an attack on him as a player, more a back-handed compliment ie. every ream would want a Richie McCaw.

 

[Rinkadink]

Related question...I've watched some videos of Richie McCaw on youtube and quite often there are at least a few commentators that call him a cheat, mostly with regard to how he gets turnovers. What aspect of his style would lend to people thinking what he does is cheating?

Because he did quite often "cheat" or push limits or influence officials and "get away with it", as every great backrower should and he was probably the greatest the game has ever seen.

As in a different post above, it is a compliment and not indicative of hatred or a slight on a personal level. Awesome player is Saint Ritchie.

 

[JDM]

Because he did quite often "cheat" or push limits or influence officials and "get away with it", as every great backrower should and he was probably the greatest the game has ever seen.

As in a different post above, it is a compliment and not indicative of hatred or a slight on a personal level. Awesome player is Saint Ritchie.

In what way(s) did he cheat, push limits, and influence refs.

 

[Brigantine]

Neither the tackler nor tackled player are technically allowed to lie on the ground around the ball but only half of that equation is enforced. Players are not allowed to go to ground at a ruck but only elaborate diving to the ground is penalised. Crouching and leaning over the tackle pile in a way that prevents a counter ruck is completely acceptable behaviour despite the laws. A ruck has been redefined to something that occurs as soon as there have been players over the ball and once everyone has collapsed after that you are not allowed to compete anymore - it is deemed won by the attacking side. This encourages going in and dragging someone down.

This bit of the game confuses me too. What I see is the attacking team taking the defenders to ground, because the defenders have or are trying to get their hands on the ball. But if it's a ruck, technically there should be no hands in the first place...

I think (?) the rules say a ruck should be resolved by pushing the entire ruck beyond where the ball is lying. Once or twice I actually saw it happen this way in a game.
Or you're allowed to pass it back with your feet like in a scrum... Oh wait, so is that why the halfback drags it out with their boot before a box kick? I just assumed they just did that in case they knocked it on picking it up amongst a mangle of body parts.

What's the rule about stepping over the tackled player? I often see the ref telling a defender not to do that, but why? On what grounds?

Is there any precedent for giving a yellow card if a team concedes too many penalties for tackled players cynically not releasing the ball?
Now *that* would encourage great counter-attacking rugby!
(Actually I noticed and was impressed by 1 or 2 games this tournament where players actually followed this rule and didn't give away penalties)

 

[Scotty]

Hello,

New to rugby over the last few years and in the US, so I'll have lots of questions. One thing I've noticed is that it seems like teams rarely compete for the ball at the ruck. Has it always been the case?

The above reasons given at the top end of the thread are correct so i wont retype that but the thing ive noticed more over the last couple of years is players clearing out the tackler whos rolling away meaning they seal off the ruck by clearing someone who has to move anyway. Has others noticed this?

 

[Rinkadink]

In what way(s) did he cheat, push limits, and influence refs.

For me he's basically the blueprint for the modern, intelligent and athletic/dynamic 7. I would say it's in the subtle things such as positioning your body as you fall to seal off a ball just so, knowing when you're unsighted to place a hand on a ball in a ruck, the way in which he studied the referees and adapted his play and communication around it, his high intelligence and knowledge of the laws (how referees interpret/apply them) and techniques, etc... I mean you've seen a lot of comments, surely you're aware of specific examples if they're related to a video?

*edit*
Had a quick Google, things like the following may be of interest to you;

https://theblitzdefence.wordpress.com/2015/08/09/richie-mccaw-master-of-7-and-the-dark-arts/amp/

 

[TheOvalBall]

Pushing the limits of the law indicates no respect for the laws of the game. I don't like McCaw. I don't care how much success he has had. A cheat is still a cheat.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

This bit of the game confuses me too. What I see is the attacking team taking the defenders to ground, because the defenders have or are trying to get their hands on the ball. But if it's a ruck, technically there should be no hands in the first place...

I think (?) the rules say a ruck should be resolved by pushing the entire ruck beyond where the ball is lying. Once or twice I actually saw it happen this way in a game.
Or you're allowed to pass it back with your feet like in a scrum... Oh wait, so is that why the halfback drags it out with their boot before a box kick? I just assumed they just did that in case they knocked it on picking it up amongst a mangle of body parts.

What's the rule about stepping over the tackled player? I often see the ref telling a defender not to do that, but why? On what grounds?

Is there any precedent for giving a yellow card if a team concedes too many penalties for tackled players cynically not releasing the ball?
Now *that* would encourage great counter-attacking rugby!
(Actually I noticed and was impressed by 1 or 2 games this tournament where players actually followed this rule and didn't give away penalties)

Re First paragraph, the rules do say that a player can put their hand on the ball before a ruck is formed, and they don't have to release it after someone binds to them. But if there had already been a ruck before they arrived then they can't put their hands on the ball. Of course usually when they get their hands on the ball before a ruck is formed the only reason Someone can take them to ground is because the tackled player didn't release the ball.

Second paragraph, yeah you are supposed to drive over the ball, a hard thing when there are players all over the ground, and another thing that is only enforced for the attacking team. ...

Third paragraph. First, if there has been a ruck at some point With people on their feet over the ball then as soon as they have gone to ground the ruck is considered won by the attacking team at which point all players lying on the ground are forming an offside line for the next play. Second, I cant remember exactly what the rules say. Third, the ref is often wrong. Edit: the rules keep changing, and are different from when I last looked, very recently. The laws say that after a ruck has been formed, if at any time there are no longer any players on their feet then there is still a ruck because none of the criteria about ending a ruck have been met, but no players can join the ruck as they can't bind to anyone in the ruck as although there is still a ruck there is no one in it. The ball is therefore unplayable and so there should be a scrum. This result is actually how the rules were some years ago, though the route to get there was different. And of course no refs rule it that way, instead they rule that only he attacking team can play the ball at that point.

Fourth paragraph, before they brought in the requirement to clearly release the tackled player and at the same time became more lenient on tackled players not releasing the ball there used to be a lot of penalties against tackled players for holding on. And yes there were yellow cards for repeat offences. But this hasn't happened in a very long time that I know of, at least 10 years.

 

[Five Meters Out]

Related question...I've watched some videos of Richie McCaw. What aspect of his style would lend to people thinking what he does is cheating?

Get a pair of English glasses. The one eyed version with, "Paranoid", written on the side. You'll soon see McCaw cheating at every ruck; unlike every other flanker in world rugby.